Madras High Court directs Authority to make available the Scrutiny Report submitted by Superintendent to petitioner [Read Order]

The Madras High Court directed the authority to make available the Scrutiny report submitted by the Superintendent to the petitioner.

The Writ Petitioner, M/s.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd. is an assessee registered with the respondent, Commissioner of CGST. The respondent issued show-cause notice, calling upon the writ petitioner to show cause as to why a sum of Rs.67,81,07,326 should not be levied on them underSection 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994, together with interest and penalty. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted their interim reply.

The petitioner also contended that there are certain basic errors in the show cause notice and that it would be better if a verification exercise is carried out. The petitioner took the stand that certain documents are to be provided by the respondents so that they could submit a consolidated reply to the show-cause notice.

Though the petitioner contends that the Commissioner of CGST had directed them to go before the Superintendent and place all the relevant materials, the Standing Counsel denies the same.

However, the Superintendent had undertaken a verification exercise and also prepared a Scrutiny Report/Verification Report.

The petitioner requested the first respondent to furnish them with a copy of the Scrutiny Report prepared by the third respondent so that they can submit their final reply and also take part in the personal hearing.

The Commissioner of CGST however decided that the petitioner is not entitled to the said copy of the report and fixed the personal hearing. To this effect, communication was also issued to the petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner.

The single-judge bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan directed the Commissioner of CGST to make available the Scrutiny report submitted by the Superintendent to the petitioner.

The petitioner’s counsel on instructions said that within a period of four weeks thereafter, the petitioner would submit their final reply and the petitioner will also take part in the personal hearing, without asking for any further extension of time.

“I make it clear that the petitioner should cooperate with the entire adjudication process, so that it can be concluded as early as possible,” the court while allowing the petition said.